Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> Tue, 13 February 2018 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D2C912D868; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:13:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mtn2pfUPeukD; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:13:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl0-x232.google.com (mail-pl0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B10112D865; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:13:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl0-x232.google.com with SMTP id t4so7027244plo.0; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:13:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wsNKv1kYahG+OFTMHvPvWIiSoQysoSJz0DUkQza79uA=; b=ZycgbBD9iHvaVL5AWmKGhPvROln/aRldHBd5Dg0hBqDcV14HdRK0MlWk4ahJu+gnDF lWJVIa0n+QTniOzG5CL1/0+nAinZ/05L6WLj8oEOtb4IM9k47OUFiE3y9wxYOcg1Pg3i x1iSrg6luH6P1w/VVN3ifyV8bUz2u1wqjMmBnOQEjhjayid0BePviC+229g0yHkwaFJU y3Dxl++bCfoghwDN6IgsgVXX34zaEbMaQH9G7pN7lmjtLAXl8OBTTEvtkaafBiGQZi5l FhUY0/HTMjh+wYUCC4H//pQKPFz5Zz+aWm/yXLveYZ1LIiOmrLZpRnIwmcdAwu9Beqh/ eP7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wsNKv1kYahG+OFTMHvPvWIiSoQysoSJz0DUkQza79uA=; b=YAq3hA7644bkJ7gzJImBRANC8j621aP7g942dojTqCho7ApiN7X9rhHAJ0YS0tHeV0 RmxP1bgeSAygNOL7qcvEgBhTo6u/H68fQvBKFtlo/6DtlDpEYer0Ww/FjWsZDfj0KH1Q SPV+7pOnMFIcFGtEkMbqESri1HRXPnq+oMjzqSPvn7iZx1/q65rzJ6u0WFpBpQ8ktVd1 MmgKmjiAT3TanUpqHFq2lqBCX3oWv+D+StrYGGaRVs/1+5Wo/Qd53GttQOsr5ciIIGDw AVJNdbMYW6unbfnywQQcFylurfvQK8FwN9jHkRs+24GvXFIhdIdqkTst7IgsYk6EyEiW iGTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBEC+NtWpguBqvP31k4IUIR+O7o14e5lnV22bVsZRpnj80qdsx5 uAKSi4nYlOd0L++fbiXNVHUeGb1MJQbqsK1R0qI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224y/3mSZ2oH/unr21VLW2q3dAG+cIegieQNH7Da01FDaTRRs9pzQrhRWVX0jU3iefFudfoORqupJ2gdYkOXVEM=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:aa85:: with SMTP id d5-v6mr1955054plr.239.1518545601658; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:13:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.182.129 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:13:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2074ADF5-C8E1-4F4A-A524-554B26BEA681@kuehlewind.net>
References: <150644890311.20830.6212136664552694640.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+YzgTtqT9Ojs8Ed8fwW3FCLGVaJMTgCxsonH1Gxe-H7Q85orA@mail.gmail.com> <BBCF6104-8351-4C90-BD38-6A515DCAB9E5@kuehlewind.net> <CA+YzgTt77KmC1g2+C==c0F2BxWS0PEiuP-R0SNvWiv=_OO7s9Q@mail.gmail.com> <FFA062AD-A257-4AA8-8DE6-C7B03330DF81@kuehlewind.net> <CA+YzgTsqAyWY=gepg=moJCmDr=JDTop_sy-+SHJ8u1qn8g2jsQ@mail.gmail.com> <cfda7846-8637-f6c7-07dc-9979bd2fa7b2@labn.net> <CA+YzgTt-8g7-7juWg0zBqah=CPLVzktGacWa19rFoK5XoSMy4g@mail.gmail.com> <AD4CDD02-ECE6-49ED-886D-3B4631329496@kuehlewind.net> <CA+YzgTsetruY9Fk98dh_cDEnqYbA2H9m3+fW6LKuYniJLmucbA@mail.gmail.com> <2074ADF5-C8E1-4F4A-A524-554B26BEA681@kuehlewind.net>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:13:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTsY2NppQeWCLh9pTChK4n-GZxLgML30=feR8XVnLSN=-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000029841b05651bf34b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/O7jV8TeT9m9smMMPKzB2GRC1r3I>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 18:13:29 -0000

Mirja, Hi!

Thanks for the response!
It doesn't seem like we can make progress here if I keep recycling the same
set of responses. I seem to have exhausted the "this is normal RSVP soft-
state signaling behavior" line of argument :)

I don't want to spend too much time arguing about a subtlety that
(probably) only folks who have implemented RSVP-TE understand. So, let me
try a different take on this.

How about the following changes to the document?

**
- Remove Section 2.3 (this takes out the contentious text)

- Make the following change in Section 3
  OLD:

   o  MUST make the default value of the configurable refresh interval
      be a large value (10s of minutes).  A default value of 20 minutes
      is RECOMMENDED by this document.

  NEW:

   o  MUST make the default value of the configurable refresh interval
      (R) be a large value (10s of minutes).  A default value of 20
      minutes is RECOMMENDED by this document.

   o  MUST use a separate refresh interval for refreshing state associated
      with unacknowledged Path/Resv messages (uR).  A default value of
      30 seconds is RECOMMENDED by this document.

- Make the following change in Appendix A.
  OLD:

      (d) Periodic Retransmission Interval for unacknowledged Path/Resv
      messages (uR) - 30 seconds (Section 2.3).
      If the Retry-Limit (Rl) is 7, then it takes 31.5 seconds for the 7
      rapid retransmit steps to max out (The last delay from message 6
      to message 7 is 16 seconds).  After the 7 rapid retransmit steps
      are maxed out, the router starts periodic retransmission on a
      slower timer.  This document recommends the use of the traditional
      default refresh interval value of 30 seconds for this periodic
      retransmission interval.

  NEW:

      (d) Refresh interval for refreshing state associated with
      unacknowledged Path/Resv messages (uR)- 30 seconds (Section 3).
      The recommended refresh interval (R) value of 20 minutes (for an
      implementation supporting RI-RSVP) can not be used for refreshing
      state associated with unacknowledged Path/Resv messages. This
      document recommends the use of the traditional default refresh
      interval value of 30 seconds for uR.

***

Let me know if the above changes address your concerns.

Regards,
-Pavan

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <
ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:

> Hi Pavan,
>
> I believe you that there may be implementation that transmit indefinitely,
> however, that is not how I read RFC2961:
>
> " The staged retransmission will continue
>    until either an appropriate MESSAGE_ID_ACK object is received, or the
>    rapid retry limit, Rl, has been reached.“
>
> or
>
> „The sending node will retransmit the message until a message
>    acknowledgment is received or the message has been transmitted a
>    maximum number of times.“
>
> For me these sentences say that one should not retransmit anymore after
> the max number is reached. If this is implemented differently, that is a
> not safe behavior and need to be clarified. There must be a termination
> condition. It is not safe for the stability of the Internet to retransmit
> packets indefinitely. Packet loss can have may reason but continuous packet
> loss is a clear sign of congestion that one can not be ignored.
>
> Mirja
>
>
>
> > Am 12.01.2018 um 14:15 schrieb Vishnu Pavan Beeram <
> vishnupavan@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Mirja, Hi!
> >
> > I thought the following response (sent on Oct 5th 2017) addressed this
> concern.
> >
> > ** Copying text from an earlier email **
> > There is nothing new about Path and Resv messages getting transmitted
> indefinitely (this is normal soft-state signaling behavior). All that is
> being discussed in this section is how these transmissions get paced after
> the rapid retry limit is reached. The slower timer transmission will go on
> until either an ack is received (at which point the regular "refresh
> interval" comes into play) or the corresponding LSP instance state is torn
> down.
> > **
> >
> > Please let me know if this still doesn't address the concern. We can set
> up a call and walk through the base RSVP specs.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -Pavan
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 7:12 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <
> ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
> > Hi Vishnu, hi all,
> >
> > sorry but I lost a little bit track of this and looking at this now the
> clarification provided below do not seem to address my concern. My concern
> is that for messages (that a MESSAGE_ID object with the ACK_Desired flag
> set), these messages would retransmit forever (even though only every 30s)
> and there is not stop criteria to finally give up (and report an error).
> >
> > Mirja
> >
> >
> > > Am 22.12.2017 um 08:44 schrieb Vishnu Pavan Beeram <
> vishnupavan@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Mirja, Hi!
> > >
> > > Please see if the responses above address your concerns. Please let us
> know if there are any issues with progressing this document.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > -Pavan
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > Please see below.
> > >
> > > On 11/13/2017 5:57 AM, Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote:
> > > Mirja, Hi!
> > >
> > > Apologize for the delayed reply.
> > > Please see inline for responses (prefixed VPB).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > -Pavan
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <
> ietf@kuehlewind.net <mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > >     Hi Vishnu,
> > >
> > >     I don’t think what you proposed is a clarification at all. RF2961
> > >     clearly reads to me that you should not retry any more after the
> > >     Rapid retry limit has been reached:
> > >
> > >
> > >     "Rl is the maximum number of times a message will be
> > >                 transmitted without being acknowledged.“
> > >
> > >
> > > Please not that this section applies to "a message containing a
> MESSAGE_ID object with the ACK_Desired flag set" and
> > >
> > > The ACK_Desired flag will typically be set only in trigger messages.
> > >
> > > This means that these procedure does not apply to normal RSVP refresh
> processing and that  normal RFC2205 defined Refresh Processing or Summary
> Refresh processing continues.
> > >
> > >
> > > [VPB] Yes. As per RFC2961, the retry limit (Rl) is the maximum number
> of times a message will be transmitted without being acknowledged. But this
> just governs the number of times you retransmit the message during the
> "rapid retransmission phase".
> > >
> > > RFC2961 is silent about what happens after the "rapid retransmission
> phase" is complete and this is the clarification that is being provided
> here in the <scaling-rec> draft.
> > >
> > > The draft is silent in general about anything that is *not* modified
> by the draft.  I think having the informative statement is appropriate.
> > >
> > > Note that the associated RSVP Path/Resv state doesn't get cleaned up
> after the "rapid retransmission" phase is complete. So at each subsequent
> refresh-interval, the unacked Path/Resv message will be sent out again
> (note that if there is no change in the state, the same MESSAGE_ID would
> get used). This behavior has always existed in RSVP-TE implementations --
> so it is incorrect to deduce from the "RFC 2961" text above that the
> retransmission of the unacked Path/Resv will never happen after the "Rl" is
> reached.
> > >
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > > Lou
> > >
> > >
> > >     Also RFC2961 suggests an initial Rf of 500ms with 7 retries and and
> > >     delta of 2, that means you will see the following retries:
> > >
> > >     1. after 500ms
> > >     2. after 1000ms
> > >     3. after 2000ms
> > >     4. after 4000ms
> > >     5. after 8000ms
> > >     6. after 16000ms
> > >     7. after 32000ms
> > >
> > >     and then give up. While you suggests to send all 300ms section
> > >     afterwards forever. That is not acceptable and can lead to
> congestion.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, that is not what is being suggested.
> > > RFC2961 suggests an Rf of 500ms with 3 retries and a delta of 2. So
> the rapid retransmissions would be:
> > > 1. after 500ms
> > > 2. after 1000ms
> > > 3. after 2000ms.
> > >
> > > With the proposal in the <scaling-rec> draft, you would try 7 times
> and then stop the "rapid retransmission phase". So, what that means is that
> the rapid retransmission phase lasts 31.5 seconds (first retry is after
> 500ms and the seventh retry is after 32000ms). After this "rapid
> retransmission phase" is complete, you keep sending the message out every
> 30000ms (30seconds is not 300ms) until an acknowledgement is received.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     Mirja
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      > Am 05.10.2017 um 22:27 schrieb Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> > >     <vishnupavan@gmail.com <mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>>:
> > >
> > >      >
> > >      > Mirja, Hi!
> > >      >
> > >      > This was discussed in my response to Elwyn. I apologize for not
> > >     responding directly.
> > >      >
> > >      > RFC2961 doesn't discuss what to do with the retransmissions
> after
> > >     the retry limit is reached. It doesn't discuss how retransmissions
> > >     need to be paced after the rapid retries are stopped. Section 2.3
> > >     (ver 7) of the current draft clarifies this and proposes the use of
> > >     a "not so rapid (30secs)" retransmission interval.
> > >      >
> > >      > There were a couple of questions from this section that you
> > >     wanted to get discussed:
> > >      > ----
> > >      > (1) Why is there no termination criteria specified?
> > >      > There is nothing new about Path and Resv messages getting
> > >     transmitted indefinitely (this is normal soft-state signaling
> > >     behavior). All that is being discussed in this section is how these
> > >     transmissions get paced after the rapid retry limit is reached. The
> > >     slower timer transmission will go on until either an ack is
> received
> > >     (at which point the regular "refresh interval" comes into play) or
> > >     the corresponding LSP instance state is torn down.
> > >      >
> > >      > ----
> > >      > (2) Why couldn't the regular refresh interval be used for these
> > >     un-acked retransmissions?
> > >      > The primary goal of the retransmission is to eke out an
> > >     acknowledgement from the neighbor as quickly as you can. You can
> use
> > >     the same value as the the regular refresh interval provided it is
> > >     small enough (like in the case of the conventional refresh interval
> > >     of 30 secs) . However, we are recommending the use of a "large
> > >     refresh interval" (20 mins) in the RI-RSVP technique -- we can't
> > >     wait that long for retrying the transmission of an unacked message.
> > >      >
> > >      > Consider a rudimentary state machine with the following states
> > >     (assuming the defaults suggested in the Appendix of the draft):
> > >      > - first retransmit (exponential back off)
> > >      > - second retransmit (exponential back off)
> > >      > ...
> > >      > - seventh retransmit (exponential back off)
> > >      > - 30s retransmission
> > >      > - 20m refresh (regular refresh timer)
> > >      >
> > >      > At any point when the Ack is received, you transition to the 20m
> > >     refresh state.
> > >      >
> > >      > ---
> > >      >
> > >      > Do these two responses adequately answer your questions?
> > >      >
> > >      > Regards,
> > >      > -Pavan
> > >      >
> > >      > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
> > >     <ietf@kuehlewind.net <mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>> wrote:
> > >      > Hi Pavan,
> > >      >
> > >      > I don’t see any changes in the new version that addresses may
> > >     actual discuss on section 2.1.3 (now section 2.3). Can you please
> > >     clarify?
> > >      >
> > >      > Thanks,
> > >      > Mirja
> > >      >
> > >      >
> > >      > > Am 28.09.2017 um 05:45 schrieb Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> > >     <vishnupavan@gmail.com <mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>>:
> > >      > >
> > >      > > Mirja, Hi!
> > >      > >
> > >      > > Thanks for the review. We just posted a new revision (-07) to
> > >     address the Gen-Art review comments. Please go through the new
> diffs
> > >     (https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-
> scaling-rec-07
> > >     <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-
> scaling-rec-07>)
> > >     and let us know if additional changes are required.
> > >      > >
> > >      > > Also, please go through the responses provided to the other
> > >     review comments and let us know if there are still any unanswered
> > >     questions.
> > >      > >
> > >      > > Regards,
> > >      > > -Pavan
> > >      > >
> > >      > >
> > >      > >
> > >      > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Mirja Kühlewind
> > >     <ietf@kuehlewind.net <mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>> wrote:
> > >      > > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> > >      > > draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06: Discuss
> > >      > >
> > >      > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply
> > >     to all
> > >      > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
> > >     cut this
> > >      > > introductory paragraph, however.)
> > >      > >
> > >      > >
> > >      > > Please refer to
> > >     https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > >     <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
> > >      > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> > >      > >
> > >      > >
> > >      > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> here:
> > >      > >
> > >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-
> scaling-rec/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-
> scaling-rec/>
> > >
> > >      > >
> > >      > >
> > >      > >
> > >      > >
> > >     ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > >      > > DISCUSS:
> > >      > >
> > >     ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > >      > >
> > >      > > I'm uncertain what section 2.1.3. actually recommends. My
> > >     understanding is that
> > >      > > it is recommend to still send retransmit some message even if
> > >     the Rl was
> > >      > > reached and to that every 30s basically forever. First of all
> I
> > >     think this
> > >      > > still needs a termination criteria when to stop to try to
> > >     retransmit finally.
> > >      > > And the I don't understand why this is needed, instead of e.g.
> > >     just using a
> > >      > > larger Rl value? Can you please clarify!
> > >      > >
> > >      > >
> > >      > >
> > >     ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > >      > > COMMENT:
> > >      > >
> > >     ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > >      > >
> > >      > > I fully agree with the gan-art review (Thanks Elwyn!) and
> > >     Alvaro, that this
> > >      > > reads from time to time like a BCP but is actually a extension
> > >     specification. I
> > >      > > would strongly recommend to apply the changes proposed by the
> > >     gen-art review,
> > >      > > and there is also a very detailed list of nits/edits that
> > >     should probably be
> > >      > > applied. Please have a look at that!
> > >      > >
> > >      > >
> > >      > > _______________________________________________
> > >      > > Teas mailing list
> > >      > > Teas@ietf.org <mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
> > >      > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> > >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>
> > >      > >
> > >      >
> > >      >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Teas mailing list
> > > Teas@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>